Key terms

• Entry cost: R$350 for the 30-day Iniciante plan on ProfitChart ONE, up to R$4,800 for the 60-day Black plan (firm’s exam page, accessed 2 September 2026).
• Exposure: 5 mini dollar or index futures contracts on Iniciante, 25 on Avançado, 50 on Ilimitado, 100 on Black.
• Profit target: R$800 net on Iniciante, R$1,600 Intermediário, R$4,000 Avançado, R$8,000 Ilimitado, R$15,000 Black.
• Profit split: 85% on Iniciante and Ilimitado, 75% on Intermediário, 50% on Avançado and Black.
• Drawdown: static cumulative “perda máxima total” — R$1,250 on Iniciante, R$4,650 on Avançado, R$15,000 on Black. No trailing drawdown on domestic markets.
• Daily loss limit / minimum days: none of either; the firm states approval is possible on day one.
• Payout frequency: monthly, by the 10th of the following month, per Clause 3.2 of the firm’s contract.
• Ongoing cost after approval: R$89.90/month (ProfitChart One), R$220.00/month (ProfitChart Pro) or R$180.00/month (BlackArrow International), paid by the trader in advance.

What the register says Axia Investing is

The brand line at the foot of every page reads “Axia Investing | A mesa proprietária mais inovadora do Brasil!” — the most innovative proprietary desk in Brazil. The corporate register disagrees about the category.

A query against Receita Federal’s CNPJ data on 2 September 2026 returns AXIA INVESTING EDUCAÇÃO FINANCEIRA LTDA, CNPJ 28.663.442/0001-37, status ATIVA since 18 September 2017. Its primary activity code is CNAE 8599-6/99, “Outras atividades de ensino não especificadas anteriormente” — other education activities not elsewhere classified. Registered share capital is R$10,000. The five secondary codes cover retail sale of computer equipment, of telephony equipment and of clothing and accessories, internet content portals, and combined office support. Not one of the six is a financial-sector activity.

The sister brand is registered the same way: STAR DESK EDUCAÇÃO FINANCEIRA LTDA, CNPJ 52.170.314/0001-36, active since 13 September 2023, under CNAE 8599-6/04, “Treinamento em desenvolvimento profissional e gerencial”. Both list the same address in Campinas, São Paulo, the same R$10,000 of capital and the same sole partner-administrator, Leonardo Megale Silva. Two education companies at one address are marketed jointly as Brazil’s largest proprietary trading group.

The firm’s own footer says the same: “Os materiais disponibilizados pela Axia Investing têm objetivo educacional”. Register and disclaimer agree; it is the brand line that sits apart — the pattern in our Phoenix Trader Funding review.

What the account actually is

Axia does not hide the account type, and deserves credit for that. The homepage states: “Conta DEMO Remunerada … os traders são remunerados como se estivessem operando em uma Conta Real, ficando com ATÉ 85% de todo o resultado líquido”. The contract is blunter: Clause 1.1 defines the object as operations “na CONTA DEMO REMUNERADA da mesa proprietária da CONTRATANTE”, and Clause 14.1 refers to “o acesso ao ambiente simulado da CONTRATANTE” — the company’s simulated environment. That is more explicit than several firms we have reviewed, including Swiss Firmup.

The problem is the panel three screens above it. “Utilize nosso dinheiro para operar, sem risco algum. Você opera e o risco é nosso” — use our money to trade, with no risk at all; you trade and the risk is ours. The firm’s own regulamento defines a trader as a user who operates “por sua conta e risco” — at their own risk. The two documents say opposite things.

The contract settles it against the marketing. Clause 10.3, headed Perdas Excedentes, provides that losses above the agreed figure “poderão ser cobradas do(a) Trader CONTRATADO(A)” — may be charged to the trader. Clause 9.5 keeps a terminated contract alive if the trader “concordar em restituir as perdas”. A trader can owe money on a simulated account.

The 85% that is often 50%

Axia advertises “até 85%”. Its own exam-page plan data shows how the tiers actually pay:

Plan (Mercado Nacional de Futuros)	Fee, 30 days	Contracts	Target	Max total loss	Split
Padrão: Iniciante + ProfitChart ONE	R$350	5	R$800	R$1,250	85%
Padrão: Intermediário + ProfitChart ONE	R$470	10	R$1,600	R$2,350	75%
Padrão: Avançado + ProfitChart ONE	R$950	25	R$4,000	R$4,650	50%
Ilimitado + ProfitChart ONE	R$1,500	50	R$8,000	R$8,000	85%
Black + ProfitChart PRO (60 days)	R$4,800	100	R$15,000	R$15,000	50%

The split is not a ladder. It falls to 50% on Avançado, recovers to 85% on Ilimitado, and falls back to 50% on the most expensive product the firm sells. The Black category page advertises that as “O maior repasse de lucros! REPASSE ÚNICO 50%” — the biggest profit split, a single split of 50% — one click from the Ilimitado page, which advertises “REPASSE ÚNICO 85%”.

The FAQ goes further, stating that profit is shared “com uma média de 85% para o trader” — an average of 85%. Across the nine 60-day domestic futures plans on sale the mean of the published splits is 71.1%; across the eight 30-day plans, 73.75%. It is the same gap between headline and contract we found at Vanta Trading.

Payouts: what is published and what is not

On mechanics, Axia is above average. Clause 3.1 commits to 85% of the monthly net positive result on the domestic futures instrument we reviewed, and Clause 3.2 sets payment by the 10th of the following month. Unusually, Clause 3.9 puts a penalty on the company for paying late — 1% monthly interest plus a 2% fine — and Clause 9.6 gives the trader just cause to terminate if sums go unpaid for more than 30 days. Few firms in this category write a self-imposed late-payment penalty into the trader’s contract.

What is missing is evidence the mechanism runs. Axia publishes no audited payout data, no pass rate and no aggregate sum paid. Its two scale claims contradict each other on one page: one panel says “mais de 19 mil Traders” have been approved across Axia and Star Desk, the About section says “mais de 20.000 traders aprovados”. And the linked “REPASSES PADRÕES” table — the payout schedule for the tiers most buyers choose — returns HTTP 404 at the address the homepage points to.

We could not obtain independent first-hand payout reports: Reddit’s search API, Trustpilot and Reclame Aqui all refused automated requests during this review. That is a gap, stated rather than papered over — but the firm supplies nothing to fill it. By contrast Topstep publishes on its homepage that in 2025 “16.8% of all Trading Combines initiated were successfully completed”, “33.3% of all individual participants at the Funded Level received a payout” and “0.71% of individual participants trading in an Express Funded Account were called up to a Live Funded Account”. Those figures are dated and quotable. Axia offers no equivalent.

The rules that fail traders

The homepage promises: “Após aprovado não existem metas, regras de consistência, e nem limitações de ganhos” — after approval there are no targets, no consistency rules and no earnings limits. Three documents contradict it.

First, the same homepage requires a trader to “comprovar pelo menos três meses de consistência” — demonstrate at least three months of consistency — before the desk head will raise contract counts. That is a consistency rule.

Second, the Ilimitado tier resets on approval. The evaluation runs 50 contracts against an R$8,000 loss buffer; the funded account starts at 25 contracts against R$3,000. Contracts halve and the buffer falls 62.5% at the moment of success, and the scaling table requires R$56,000 of cumulative profit to return to the 50 contracts the trader was already tested on. The firm markets this as a feature — “Única que muda os parâmetros após aprovação”.

Third, and most consequential, Clause 9.9 permits immediate termination without notice for “descumprimento reiterado de orientações operacionais, mesmo que não configure o atingimento da Perda Máxima Total contratualmente estabelecida” — repeated failure to follow operational guidance, even where no maximum loss has been breached. Clause 9.9(c) extends that to any conduct which, “a critério razoável da CONTRATANTE”, compromises the relationship of trust; Clause 9.7 makes acts damaging the company’s image before third parties an automatic ground for termination, which read plainly covers public complaint. A programme with no rules does not need three of them.

Two mechanics complete the picture: the maximum total loss is cumulative from the first day of trading and terminates the contract under Clause 9.4, and unpaid platform fees suspend access the next business day and terminate the contract for cause after 45 days.

How it compares

Firm	Advertised max split	Split on its most expensive tier	Account described by the firm as	Published outcome statistics
Axia Investing	85%	50% (Black, R$4,800)	“Conta DEMO Remunerada” / “ambiente simulado”	None
Topstep	90%	Not published	“Simulated trading program services”	16.8% / 33.3% / 0.71% for 2025
FTMO	90%	Not published	“Demo Trading” on a “simulated platform”, up to $200K simulated capital	None on the homepage

Axia’s headline split is the lowest of the three, and it is the only one whose advertised maximum is contradicted by its own published plan data.

Regulatory posture

Axia Investing is not authorised by Brazil’s securities regulator, and says so. Its footer states verbatim: “A Axia Investing não é uma empresa habilitada perante CVM, seja na Habilitação de Recursos de terceiros, na intermediação de valores mobiliários ou qualquer outra atividade regulada.”

Under Lei 6.385/1976, Article 16, “Depende de prévia autorização da Comissão de Valores Mobiliários o exercício das seguintes atividades: … III – mediação ou corretagem de operações com valores mobiliários.” The firm’s position, in Clause 6.1 of its contract, is that the trader is not subject to direct CVM registration because they operate “exclusivamente com capital próprio da CONTRATANTE e não gerir recursos de terceiros”. That is the firm’s own characterisation of its model; so far as we could establish it has not been tested by CVM in a published decision, and this review takes no view on whether it is correct.

What can be stated as fact is narrower and more useful to a buyer. The contracting entity is an education company with R$10,000 of registered capital, and the account is a simulator by the contract’s own words. One of the firm’s own account labels, published in its FAQ, reads “CONTA DEMO REMUNERADA NACIONAL: 102 AXIA INVESTING INSTITUIÇÃO FINANCEIRA” — financial institution — a description that appears nowhere in the register. Brazil’s regulators have been tightening disclosure in adjacent retail markets, as our coverage of the Banco Central’s 24-hour crypto hold shows; prop desks have so far sat outside that perimeter.

FAQ

Is Axia Investing regulated by CVM?
No. Its own footer states it is not authorised by CVM for third-party funds, securities intermediation or any other regulated activity. It is registered with Receita Federal under CNPJ 28.663.442/0001-37 as an education company, CNAE 8599-6/99, with R$10,000 of share capital.

What is the profit split?
Between 50% and 85% by plan: Iniciante and Ilimitado 85%, Intermediário 75%, Avançado and Black 50%. The advertised “up to 85%” is accurate; the FAQ’s claim of an “average of 85%” is not, since the firm’s own plan data averages 71.1% across the 60-day domestic futures range.

Are there consistency rules after approval?
The marketing says no. The firm nonetheless requires three months of demonstrated consistency before raising contract limits, resets Ilimitado accounts from 50 contracts to 25 on approval, and reserves an immediate right of termination for repeated non-compliance with operational guidance even where no loss limit has been breached.

Can a trader owe money on a simulated account?
The contract contemplates it. Clause 10.3 allows losses beyond the agreed limit to be charged to the trader, and Clause 9.5 permits a terminated contract to be reinstated if the trader agrees to reimburse the losses. That sits directly against the marketing line “sem risco algum”.

This review is independent editorial analysis and is not financial, investment, or trading advice, and is not an endorsement or solicitation. The Industry Spread has no affiliate or referral relationship with the firms covered. Proprietary trading challenges carry a fee that is generally non-refundable, most participants do not reach a funded account, and funded capital is the firm’s capital, not the trader’s. Terms change frequently — always verify current rules directly with the firm before paying any fee.